If the season ended today, I'm sure absolutely nothing would be mentioned about our first-round matchup..

Games of Interest for the Seahawks

49ers (7-2-1) at Saints (5-5)The suddenly red hot Saints are just a game removed from the final Wild Card spot, and low and behold.. they face the team we're chasing in the NFC West. Colin Kaepernick and Aldon Smith stole the show last night, but a short week trip to the Superdome could be a tough turnaround. The Saints schedule gets noticeably more difficult over the next three weeks (vs. 49ers, at Falcons (Thurs), at Giants) so I believe in the interest of catching the 49ers - we should be a part of the WHO DAT nation this weekend. Especially since we should HOPEFULLY take care of business in Miami.

Falcons (9-1) at Buccaneers (6-4)The tricky Buccaneers are tied with us at 6-4, and thanks to conference record we currently have the tie-breaker over them for the 6th seed. That doesn't mean we couldn't use a little extra breathing room from the Falcons. The Falcons are the odds on favorite to gain HFA in the NFC Playoffs this year, getting the Buccaneers back to 6-5 seems more important long term. Root for the Dirty Birds here.

Packers (7-3) at Giants (6-4)The Packers gave the Seahawks a little help by sending the Lions to 4-6 last weekend.. putting them two games behind the Seahawks in the "L" column (remember Detroit has the H2H tie-breaker over us). Now we need the Giants to give us a bit of help by knocking the red-hot Packers off, and in the event the Seahawks win on Sunday, the Seahawks would have the edge on the Packers again in the Wild Card (Golden Tate caught it right? wink wink). Not to mention.. we just want to see the Cowboys die off sooner than later. The Cowboys almost have to win the division at this point to get into the playoffs (they lost to both the Bears and Seahawks). Go Giants!

Redskins (4-6) at Cowboys (5-5)Life is just more enjoyable when the Cowboys lose. Go RG3. The Redskins are unlikely to make a strong playoff push, so might as well drag the Cowboys down into a deep hole with them.

Vikings (6-4) at Bears (7-3)Oddly enough, the Vikings really don't concern me.. though they do have the same record as us, we have the H2H tie-break over them. I think in this case, we treat the Vikings like the Packers. A buffer zone is better in the long run than beating the Bears and creating a 3-way tie for the NFC North lead if the Giants also defeat the Packers. Go Bears in this case.

Hasselbeck wrote:Vikings (6-4) at Bears (7-3)Oddly enough, the Vikings really don't concern me.. though they do have the same record as us, we have the H2H tie-break over them. I think in this case, we treat the Vikings like the Packers. A buffer zone is better in the long run than beating the Bears and creating a 3-way tie for the NFC North lead if the Giants also defeat the Packers. Go Bears in this case.

This is the only one where I disagree with you. The Vikings' remaining schedule is the Bears twice, Packers twice, at Houston, and at St. Louis. They should be dogs in every one of those games and IMO will be lucky to get to 8-8. I'd rather the Bears lose because they're much more likely to be fighting for a spot with us at the end of the season.

NJSeaHawk wrote:thanks for this post. I always look forward to rooting for the teams that will help us.

I’m with my Jersey brethren here, but nothing is more frustrating to me than to have everyone else do just what you need; then have, let’s just say, the Rams roll in and throw a wrench into the whole works.

So honestly let’s just keep winning PLEASE....

"Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis." Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.(St. Augustine of Hippo)

Hasselbeck wrote:Vikings (6-4) at Bears (7-3)Oddly enough, the Vikings really don't concern me.. though they do have the same record as us, we have the H2H tie-break over them. I think in this case, we treat the Vikings like the Packers. A buffer zone is better in the long run than beating the Bears and creating a 3-way tie for the NFC North lead if the Giants also defeat the Packers. Go Bears in this case.

This is the only one where I disagree with you. The Vikings' remaining schedule is the Bears twice, Packers twice, at Houston, and at St. Louis. They should be dogs in every one of those games and IMO will be lucky to get to 8-8. I'd rather the Bears lose because they're much more likely to be fighting for a spot with us at the end of the season.

Hasselbeck wrote:Vikings (6-4) at Bears (7-3)Oddly enough, the Vikings really don't concern me.. though they do have the same record as us, we have the H2H tie-break over them. I think in this case, we treat the Vikings like the Packers. A buffer zone is better in the long run than beating the Bears and creating a 3-way tie for the NFC North lead if the Giants also defeat the Packers. Go Bears in this case.

This is the only one where I disagree with you. The Vikings' remaining schedule is the Bears twice, Packers twice, at Houston, and at St. Louis. They should be dogs in every one of those games and IMO will be lucky to get to 8-8. I'd rather the Bears lose because they're much more likely to be fighting for a spot with us at the end of the season.

Hmm.. valid point.

Go Vikings.

Agreed, Go vikings, but I'm weary a bears team with two consecutive losses might be starting at their entire season when the Hawks come to town. I would almost rather have them a little cocky than backs against the wall. Or we can just hope that SF shattered their confidence and they go into a complete meltdown and lose to Minn and us the following week.

The 49ers have a brutal schedule, 4 out of 5 weeks on the road, culiminating with the game at C-Link, hopefully we beat them up enough that the Cardinals can also have their way with them.

The good news is that if it DOES pan out like that we can afford to lose 1 game somewhere along the line and still get homefield advantage (the Bills game or Rams game would probably be safest, although also the most annoying)

But seriously, we should be a favored in every game (except Chicago I guess if Cutler is back). The only real ball buster might be the 49ers, but then again they might already have HFA wrapped up (2nd to last week of the regular season) and will be playing second stringers. Who knows.

themunn wrote:Go Saints and Giantsthe rest of the games are irrelevantIf the Saints and Giants win and we win out... #2 seed baby!

The other games aren't irrelevant because the odds are against the Seahawks (or any team for that matter) to win 6 consecutive games even if they are favored in all of those games. Any losses by teams near us in the standings are very relevant. I agree though, that after the Seahawks the next team I'm rooting hardest for this week is the Saints, then the Giants.

FlyingGreg wrote:49ers, but then again they might already have HFA wrapped up (2nd to last week of the regular season) and will be playing second stringers. Who knows.

Hopefully they won't have HFA wrapped up by then because that would mean the Seahawks have more losses over the next 4 weeks than the 49ers. We will probably be favored against them at home, though.

But seriously, we should be a favored in every game (except Chicago I guess if Cutler is back). The only real ball buster might be the 49ers, but then again they might already have HFA wrapped up (2nd to last week of the regular season) and will be playing second stringers. Who knows.

Someone still has to beat the ‘49ers or they finish a half game ahead of us…

New Orleans this weekend is as good as any…

"Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis." Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.(St. Augustine of Hippo)

themunn wrote:Go Saints and Giantsthe rest of the games are irrelevantIf the Saints and Giants win and we win out... #2 seed baby!

The other games aren't irrelevant because the odds are against the Seahawks (or any team for that matter) to win 6 consecutive games even if they are favored in all of those games. Any losses by teams near us in the standings are very relevant. I agree though, that after the Seahawks the next team I'm rooting hardest for this week is the Saints, then the Giants.

FlyingGreg wrote:49ers, but then again they might already have HFA wrapped up (2nd to last week of the regular season) and will be playing second stringers. Who knows.

Hopefully they won't have HFA wrapped up by then because that would mean the Seahawks have more losses over the next 4 weeks than the 49ers. We will probably be favored against them at home, though.

The problem is that tie with the Rams. We are TWO DOWN in the loss column, and unless we tie it will be uneven math. In essence, we need the 49ers to lose 3 times in their last 6 games.

Here are our respective schedules before we play Dec 23:

SEAHAWKS (6-4)@ Miami (W)@ Chicago (L)vs Arizona (W)@ Buffalo (W)

49ERS (7-2-1)@ NO (W)@ STL (W)vs Miami (W)@ New England (L)

That puts us at 9-5 and them at 10-3-1 heading into our game. If we beat them, that puts us at 10-5 and them at 10-4-1. I know the Saints are hot right now , but the 49ers are just the type of team that can beat them. Conversely, I think we 'can' win in Chicago but that's going to be a tough, tough game. Even if they lose their last game against Arizona and we beat St. Louis, we'd still be one back in the loss column.

themunn wrote:Go Saints and Giantsthe rest of the games are irrelevantIf the Saints and Giants win and we win out... #2 seed baby!

The other games aren't irrelevant because the odds are against the Seahawks (or any team for that matter) to win 6 consecutive games even if they are favored in all of those games. Any losses by teams near us in the standings are very relevant. I agree though, that after the Seahawks the next team I'm rooting hardest for this week is the Saints, then the Giants.

FlyingGreg wrote:49ers, but then again they might already have HFA wrapped up (2nd to last week of the regular season) and will be playing second stringers. Who knows.

Hopefully they won't have HFA wrapped up by then because that would mean the Seahawks have more losses over the next 4 weeks than the 49ers. We will probably be favored against them at home, though.

They look relevant until you see that all of these teams play each other - the Vikings play the Bears twice and the Packers twice, the Cowboys arguably have the easiest schedule but are also a game and a tiebreaker behind us (and have to play the Saints too), the Saints have to play the 49ers, the Giants, the Falcons, the aforementioned Cowboys and the Buccaneers - who have to play the Falcons twice as well - who also have to play the Lions.

If we win 4 of our remaining 6 (the games against the Bears and 49ers are pivotal), then it's near impossible for us to fail to make the playoffs.

In fact I might make a spreadsheet. In fact I'm definitely going to make a spreadsheet.

FlyingGreg wrote:The problem is that tie with the Rams. We are TWO DOWN in the loss column, and unless we tie it will be uneven math. In essence, we need the 49ers to lose 3 times in their last 6 games.

If we win out, we need the 49ers to lose 2 of their last 6 (including the game in Seattle). 12-4 is a better record than 11-4-1. The 49ers' tie with the Rams is as good as a loss because they would have won the tiebreaker with us.

FlyingGreg wrote:The problem is that tie with the Rams. We are TWO DOWN in the loss column, and unless we tie it will be uneven math. In essence, we need the 49ers to lose 3 times in their last 6 games.

If we win out, we need the 49ers to lose 2 of their last 6 (including the game in Seattle). 12-4 is a better record than 11-4-1. The 49ers' tie with the Rams is as good as a loss because they would have won the tiebreaker with us.

I agree, but in your scenario with each team winning 3 of the next 4, SF still wouldn't have the division clinched before week 16. They would be 10-3-1 and we would be 9-5. If we beat them in week 16, then we win and they lose in week 17, we would finish 11-5 to their 10-5-1. For the 49ers to have the division clinched going into the week 16 game, they would need to have a better, not just equal, record than us over the next 4 weeks.

I agree, but in your scenario with each team winning 3 of the next 4, SF still wouldn't have the division clinched before week 16. They would be 10-3-1 and we would be 9-5. If we beat them in week 16, then we win and they lose in week 17, we would finish 11-5 to their 10-5-1. For the 49ers to have the division clinched going into the week 16 game, they would need to have a better, not just equal, record than us over the next 4 weeks.

True. If we both only lose one game before we play each other, that's going to make for a heckuva game!

Almost all (if not every one of) the 2nd seed scenarios revolve around the Hawks winning out…

But all reality aside… given the correct scenario even Kansas City can make the playoffs so….

"Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis." Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.(St. Augustine of Hippo)

FlyingGreg wrote:The problem is that tie with the Rams. We are TWO DOWN in the loss column, and unless we tie it will be uneven math. In essence, we need the 49ers to lose 3 times in their last 6 games.

If we win out, we need the 49ers to lose 2 of their last 6 (including the game in Seattle). 12-4 is a better record than 11-4-1. The 49ers' tie with the Rams is as good as a loss because they would have won the tiebreaker with us.

5-1 isn't too far a stretch though, we went 5-3 down the final 8 last season with a much worse, much more injured team (no Okung/Carp/Moffit/Rice/Williams, Tarvaris Jackson at QB etc), and of those losses, one was a 2 pointer to SF and another was in overtime in Arizona. We're a team built for the second half of the season and I think that will show soon.

Certainly with a rookie QB starting, one could expect the team to get better in the 2nd half of the season... combine that with what is clearly an easier portion of the schedule, and yes, I agree with many of the other posters, you'd think we could win at least four of the next six.

There is a scenario where we could lose to the Bears and STILL get the #2 seed:1. Us winning all but Bears game.2. 49ers lose to Saints, NE, and Hawks3. GB wins North with 11-5 record

I've seen worse odds before...and those are the BEST case scenarios.

You've got to be willing to go against the tide. You've got to be be willing to harness your will and say In spite of this I'm in control here! I'm coming back and I'll be stronger and better because of it!- Les Brown

Hasselbeck wrote:Vikings (6-4) at Bears (7-3)Oddly enough, the Vikings really don't concern me.. though they do have the same record as us, we have the H2H tie-break over them. I think in this case, we treat the Vikings like the Packers. A buffer zone is better in the long run than beating the Bears and creating a 3-way tie for the NFC North lead if the Giants also defeat the Packers. Go Bears in this case.

This is the only one where I disagree with you. The Vikings' remaining schedule is the Bears twice, Packers twice, at Houston, and at St. Louis. They should be dogs in every one of those games and IMO will be lucky to get to 8-8. I'd rather the Bears lose because they're much more likely to be fighting for a spot with us at the end of the season.

In the NFC North the Vikes and Lions have the toughest schedules. The Bears schedule isn't a cake walk either. They have the VIkes twice, Seattle, GB, Zona and the Lions. As of right now though they do pose the biggest threat for the Wildcard since GB will most likely take the division with their easier schedule. I still think the Hawks have a legit chance to take the NFC West.

Not taking the 'Phins for granted - I'm certainly not, anyway - but it could mean playing Jason Campbell followed by Ryan Lindley/Ryan Reynolds/Ryan Leaf/whoever-has-the-job-that week in AZ. All of which could mean a less important return match against SF in December.